atheist logic

[The-Deist]

;D ;D

I am not an atheist but that comparison does not relate to it in any way.

You are literally stating atheists disbelieve in the universe.

 

[Pygoscelis]

But you say yourself, science has no answers as to how the universe came about, and you say science has no need for God to be a part of that explanation. You seem to be asking us to accept inconclusive evidence, that there is no God.

You have this exactly backwards. I lack belief in God(s) because I lack any evidence for God(s). It is you who accept a conclusion with certainty without any evidence that I find convincing. I go with the best science available, and my mind is always open to change, and the best science available does not require or point to God(s).

To my way of thinking, religious people can still believe in God, and not go against science.

Only by selectively ignoring any part of doctrine that conflicts. Science does not conflict with a mere deist creator God, but as soon as you add those outlandish claims such as Noah's flood, splitting the moon in half, etc, you've got a problem. Religion also gives you a strong bias against evolution theory.

Because of the complexities of life, I firmly believe that even if evolution happened, it could not happen without the guiding hand of God.

How would that still be evolution then? That would be some sort of twisted long painful version of creation, and why would God do it that way? With all of the nasty creatures evolution has led to from the botfly to the wasp larvae that eat their prey from the inside out?

Nature needs mechanisms to cause mutations. If I moved to Kenya, my skin would become darker, if I had a child with a black Kenyan woman, some changes would come from a mixture of black and white parents. I understand the principle of the roughest toughest male in the flock, gets to pick the girls, so the best is passed onto a next generation.

That isn't mutation. Mutation is a change in your genes. It happens more often than you may think. I myself was born with a mutation. I had a tiny extra bone in my feet, that had to be taken out via surgery when I was a child. It wasn't seen as remarkable.

Less than a billion years ago, what would cause bones to form in early species? More importantly, what forces of nature what would cause these bones to mutate and take the shape of vertebra, skulls, limbs, ribs etc?

Have you actually looked into this, or are you just looking for excuses not to consider evolution theory? I found this link with a 5 second google search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

There are entire scientific journals dedicated to researching the questions you pose here.

From the time the first bones appeared in living species, to the formation of a full skeletal system, probably happened in less than 500 million years, or about 500 million generations.

Citation needed.

But what forces of nature would cause ligaments, tendons and muscles to link bones together to create movement?

Again, this is being researched and the papers are fascinating. If you are truly curious, I suggest you do some reading.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings ardianto,

Okay bro, if you do not mind I want to know your view on religious people regarding science. Do you see religious people have tendency to reject scientific fact if they think it's maybe contrary with religious scripture?. If yes, then which religious people that have strongest tendency?. Muslims?, Christians, Hindus?, Others?.

If you do not mind. If you are not willing to share your view, it's okay.

I don't really know how to answer this. I can't classify people's beliefs about science solely based on their religion. I've known Muslims who accept the theory of evolution and Muslims who reject it. The same with Christians. I know some conservative Christians oppose stem cell research, and I know some Muslims who have no objection to it. I'm not sure it's a very meaningful way of understanding people's beliefs.

Peace

 

[MidnightRose]

Have you actually looked into this, or are you just looking for excuses not to consider evolution theory? I found this link with a 5 second google search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

There are entire scientific journals dedicated to researching the questions you pose here.


Again, this is being researched and the papers are fascinating. If you are truly curious, I suggest you do some reading.

I have looked into this and am fully aware of this research. While it may be fascinating, the conclusions are all apriori.

For all our interested readers who are new to this term, a layman's definition can be relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation.

In other words, no one was there to observe what happened. These scientists are interpreting this evidence according to what they already believe. They weren't there to observe it happen.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I have looked into this and am fully aware of this research. While it may be fascinating, the conclusions are all apriori.

For all our interested readers who are new to this term, a layman's definition can be relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation

What's wrong with a priori knowledge? All of our knowledge of mathematics is a priori too, but you're not about to cast doubt on that too, are you?

In other words, no one was there to observe what happened. These scientists are interpreting this evidence according to what they already believe. They weren't there to observe it happen.

We are talking about processes that have occurred over millions of years. It is hardly surprising that nobody has been able to observe them over that timescale. All we can do is interpret the evidence. Evolution by natural selection happens to be the best explanatory theory we currently have to conduct that interpretation.

Peace

 

[MidnightRose]

We are talking about processes that have occurred over millions of years. It is hardly surprising that nobody has been able to observe them over that timescale. All we can do is interpret the evidence. Evolution by natural selection happens to be the best explanatory theory we currently have to conduct that interpretation.

Peace

It's the best explanatory theory according to those who already hold those beliefs. Your explanation of All we can do is interpret the evidence isn't convincing to me.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It's the best explanatory theory according to those who already hold those beliefs. Your explanation of All we can do is interpret the evidence isn't convincing to me.

You seem very confused. "All we can do is interpret the evidence" isn't an explanation.

Complaining that nobody has yet made multi-million year observations is definitely one of the more bizarre objections to evolution that I've heard. Do you have any others?

Perhaps you would also like to explain what your objection to a priori knowledge is?

Peace

 

[MidnightRose]

Greetings,

You seem very confused. "All we can do is interpret the evidence" isn't an explanation.

Complaining that nobody has yet made multi-million year observations is definitely one of the more bizarre objections to evolution that I've heard. Do you have any others?

Perhaps you would also like to explain what your objection to a priori knowledge is?

Peace

You are the one that's confused. I didn't object to a priori knowledge. I mentioned it in the context of evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory is a set of beliefs. It is not definitive.

Since none of them were there, these findings are all interpreted according to the beliefs of these researchers. I don't believe they're explanations are fully credible.

Muslims have the Prophet Muhammad :saws: for these explanations. His :saws: truthfulness is impeccable.

 

[Serinity]

The time arguement doesn't sound convincing in the least. The "given enough time" argument sounds like a belief to me. not convincing. So there randomly appeared a snake through time? Yet time has no mind of its own, so impossible.

I find it quite ridiculous. To believe time can 'create' etc. That is the most superstitious belief........ No matter how much time I wait, my homework won't make it itself. No matter how many years I go to school, without doing homework, the homework won't do it itself. And I won't get a A+......... And this creation, and our brain is excellent.

So time doesn't play a part in creation, so the time arguement is therefore invalid. So no matter how much time goes by, it did not play a part. And it isn't a factor, or a 'cause'.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You are the one that's confused. I didn't object to a priori knowledge. I mentioned it in the context of evolutionary theory.

Yes, you mentioned it in the service of a bizarre objection to evolution.

Evolutionary theory is a set of beliefs. It is not definitive.

Like everything in science, it is subject to continuous revision. What is the problem here?

Since none of them were there, these findings are all interpreted according to the beliefs of these researchers. I don't believe they're explanations are fully credible.

I wonder how much longer are you going to keep us waiting for you to spell out your objections to evolution?

Muslims have the Prophet Muhammad :saws: for these explanations. His :saws: truthfulness is impeccable.

Does he have an explanation for the diversity of life that is more enlightening than "God did it"?

Peace

 

[MidnightRose]

Greetings,

Yes, you mentioned it in the service of a bizarre objection to evolution.

I did not. I believe that’s a bizarre interpretation of what I said.

Like everything in science, it is subject to continuous revision. What is the problem here?

I wonder how much longer are you going to keep us waiting for you to spell out your objections to evolution?

My responses are not guided by your principles. Anyone is free to review my posts to see my answers.

Does he have an explanation for the diversity of life that is more enlightening than "God did it"?

Peace

Islamic belief in the truthfulness of the Prophet Muhammad :saws: is not contingent to your logic. You’ve been here since 2005.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

You have this exactly backwards. I lack belief in God(s) because I lack any evidence for God(s).

Agreed, but I call it faith and trust, rather than science and evidence.

I go with the best science available, and my mind is always open to change, and the best science available does not require or point to God(s).

But the best science does not have an answer as to how the universe came into being, you have said as much yourself.

How would that still be evolution then? That would be some sort of twisted long painful version of creation, and why would God do it that way? With all of the nasty creatures evolution has led to from the botfly to the wasp larvae that eat their prey from the inside out?

You seem to use evolution as a means of proving there is no God.

Have you actually looked into this, or are you just looking for excuses not to consider evolution theory? I found this link with a 5 second google search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

There are entire scientific journals dedicated to researching the questions you pose here.

Thanks for the link, it does explain how shells and spines may have come about, and I can understand and accept the following explanation from your link.

So, how did mineralized tissues develop in the first place? What factors forced the first organisms to develop protective shields?

Following the violent moves of tectonic plates about 1.5 billion (1.5 × 109) years ago, huge amounts of minerals, including CaCO3, were washed into the oceans. This created the possibility for its inhabitants of developing hard body parts, such as shells or spines

But it gives no detail that once these mineralized tissues developed, how they then formed the shapes of skulls, hips limbs ribs, etc.

Again from your link

Given that most primitive examples of mineralization belong to extinct lineages, for a long time our understanding of bone evolution was entirely based on the available fossil evidence. Only paleontology studies offered the possibility of gaining some insight into the ancient processes that led to mineralized skeleton; from the evidence available, it was surmised that the vertebrates were most likely descended from amphioxus-like forms with a notochord. These were followed by jawless creatures with a cartilage-like endoskeleton, reminiscent of the modern hagfish or lamprey

This is the frustrating thing I find about evolution papers, they mention that vertebrate evolved from notochord, they just seem to float these words by, but they do not give any clues as to what formed the specific shapes of these bones. They do not give any clues as to how ligaments, muscles and tendons came to be either, where is the detail?

Now if you are claiming all this happened without God, where is the real science and evidence. I am sure if there were convincing evidence with detail, then more people would come to accept it.

Again, this is being researched and the papers are fascinating. If you are truly curious, I suggest you do some reading.

It may be fascinating, but do they give detail.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

 

[Pygoscelis]

We are talking about processes that have occurred over millions of years. It is hardly surprising that nobody has been able to observe them over that timescale. All we can do is interpret the evidence. Evolution by natural selection happens to be the best explanatory theory we currently have to conduct that interpretation.

And we actually CAN observe some evolution in progress. Superbugs, pesticide resistant crops starting to fail, etc. We can also observe it in bacteria under microscopes. There's a reason why we can't develop one forever cure for the flu and such viruses. Evolution.

 

[Pygoscelis]

But the best science does not have an answer as to how the universe came into being, you have said as much yourself.

There are multiple theories that are consistent with our data, but no, we are not anywhere close to a definitive answer. That is no reason to leap to a God of the gaps though. Our data does not point towards any such thing.

You seem to use evolution as a means of proving there is no God.

God is set up to be unfalsifiable, so there can be no way to prove that there is no God. Just like you can't disprove any other non-falsifiable claim. That doesn't make it true, or even reasonable to believe, especially if you add additional claims that conflict with themselves and lose logical coherency.

But it gives no detail that once these mineralized tissues developed, how they then formed the shapes of skulls, hips limbs ribs, etc.

It was literally the result of a 5 second google search. I think you can find better if you really make an effort to look. I suspect that you feel a religious incentive not to do so.

I have no such bias. I don't base my personal identity, world view, or approach to data on any such bias. If we discover an alien base on Pluto, with good evidence showing that these beings are so powerful as to be called "gods" by us, and good evidence that the earth was created by them... I have no reason not to conclude that. Just as I have no reason not to conclude that God and Jesus exist if they appear before me and others and provide actual evidence, something beyond a dusty old book and a warm feeling.

There is no positive proof in favour of atheism. Atheism rests entirely on the lack of evidence for theism.

 

[M.I.A.]

..the plants did it!.. Far from an obscure reference to the happening..

Most wildlife has in part or fully adapted to take advantage of and live alongside plant life..

As I'm sure you know.

Evolution much as any other set of data can be represented in any number of ways.. Depending on the agenda.

For instance take as an example the simulated universe theory that has been popular of recent,

For all intents and purposes it points towards a creator and yet none is given credit for it..

To find or believe something similar is not the case with a biological, chemical system is simply not connecting the dots.

As for mathematics, one literally would assume that everything is run by numbers.. From the very building blocks of our foundations..

Although iv not seem 23..

As the post above yours suggests, time is not the implied creator..

The creator is timeless.. To understand every interaction within life.. Would still lead you to the question why?

What difference does belief make?

 

[Serinity]

Allah can create whatever He wills, who is to say that He isn't continously creating new things by the minute? New creatures etc.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I did not. I believe that’s a bizarre interpretation of what I said.

Well, OK. As you say, everyone can see what you've written.

Peace

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

There are multiple theories that are consistent with our data, but no, we are not anywhere close to a definitive answer. That is no reason to leap to a God of the gaps though. Our data does not point towards any such thing.

There seems an endless trail of inconclusive data on the internet, but where is the truth?

That is no reason to leap to a God of the gaps though. Our data does not point towards any such thing.

You seem to be confirming again that science has no answer to creation. Hand on heart, can you truthfully say that your bias has not ruled out God.

God is set up to be unfalsifiable, so there can be no way to prove that there is no God. Just like you can't disprove any other non-falsifiable claim. That doesn't make it true, or even reasonable to believe, especially if you add additional claims that conflict with themselves and lose logical coherency.

For creation to be possible, something had to have no beginning, or something did not come from anything, both of these are beyond logic and reason.

It was literally the result of a 5 second google search. I think you can find better if you really make an effort to look.

I have trawled through a lot of sites; they just describe fossils, and say why one is an advantage over another. They do not give any indication of how shapes and sizes are formed, only that they are. There can be around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and a 1000 tendons. They are each a size and shape that serve a purpose and work together as a whole.

I suspect that you feel a religious incentive not to do so.

Nilsson and Pelger's claim for a complete model for eye evolution, comes close to the detail that I would look for. However, it seems to go against the principle of no goals in evolution, so I am not convinced an eye could evolve in this way.

There is no positive proof in favour of atheism. Atheism rests entirely on the lack of evidence for theism.

The truthful stance would be agnostic, but you seem to rule that out.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Serinity]

There is plenty of proof for God's existence - the creation - our existence. But little do you reflect! Tell me, who created this? How did this come? How did the snake know to be a snake and not a cow?

How does the cells know what to do, in such a complex manner, with reason too? And WHERE does that KNOWLEDGE come from? Putting God in the picture is quite rational. Not irrational. The more you reflect, the more you will know.

Only a creator could create a snake, a cow, a human! The cells have no intelligence or thought. Or do you think that the cells are the creators?! Astaghfirgullah.

Where did reason come from? Where did rationality, thought, logic, come from? Do you really think from chaos and disorder, there can be order and stability?

And to think that you yourself made this, or came like this, is like saying this computer made itself over a course of a billion years.

To think that you got reason by yourself etc. Is quite arrogant.

Only a God could from an explosion make something like this. The more I study Biology, the more I see the absurdity in Atheistic beliefs. It is shirk of the highest form.

Tell me, will a human being automatically form if you acitvate a C4 Bomb?! Or will a cow spawn if you bomb as much as you can, and wait for time? Time is not a factor in creation. It isn't a creator.

do you really think that from unconsciousness there can be consciousness? Then how come the robots never came to existence / were never made, until we started making them? They didn't pop into existence, why? Could a course of a billion years make a robot?

No, cause, if nothing comes, nothing happens Nothing creates nothing. If someone never initiated / caused Universe to exist, then the universe would never have existed. So our existence requires a creator, with no beginning or end.

And I am not asking for a response, I am asking for you to reflect.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Evolution is guided. It is not random. It is guided by natural selection. Gene replication isn't perfect, and sometimes when DNA is copied there is a glitch and the copy fails and produces a mutation. Often these mutations immediately kill the organism (prior to birth). Sometimes they result in birth defects. Sometimes they lead to quirks such as myself being born with an extra tiny bone in my feet that had to be surgically removed, and sometimes they are beneficial. Sometimes the change resulting from the misfire of copying the DNA is small and sometimes it is drastic. If the change is beneficial to the point that the organism has greater success in surviving and reproducing, it passes that new DNA to the next generation. That is natural selection. And that is evolution at the most basic level. It explains why muscles became shaped the way that they did.

I see no need for a God in that. You do? Where does God fit into it? Is he, rather than radiation or mishap, creating the mutations, and creating all those horrible and deadly birth defects? Did he create all of those historic creatures just to have them go extinct? Does he create via a slow and gradual process indistinguishable from mutation and natural selection? Why? Couldn't he just create man fully formed, from say a clump of mud, and make woman out of one of his ribs or something fancy like that? Why are we finding all of this evidence of evolution rather than of that sort of creation?

The truthful stance would be agnostic, but you seem to rule that out.

Are you saying that Christianity is untruthful unless it is agnostic?

I myself am an agnostic atheist. I do not know for sure that creator Gods don't exist, deist ones that is, but I have no reason to believe that they do.

--------------------------------------------

Evolution is not analogous to a bunch of metal in a tornado turning into an airplane or a bunch of atoms turning into a computer due to being shaken around a whole lot. That analogy doesn't take any of reproduction, mutation, or natural selection into account. And that would be incredibly, astronomically, unlikely, to the point that we would dismiss it out of hand.... but it wouldn't be completely impossible. It doesn't involve logical or factual contradictions or paradoxes the way that omni-everything Gods do.

Could a course of a billion years make a robot?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if robots could self-reproduce and had instruction code that glitched every now and then making errors in its copying, coding for different structures within the robots. But to answer your question, the best science we currently have points at humans evolving over a long period of time from a simple single celled organism, and we then made robots, so yes. It could potentially do exactly that.

No, cause, if nothing comes, nothing happens Nothing creates nothing. If someone never initiated / caused Universe to exist, then the universe would never have existed. So our existence requires a creator, with no beginning or end.

But of course you will then say that the creator didn't need a creator, right? Hello special pleading. I agree that it is difficult to fathom how something could come from nothing, but your introduction of a God doesn't help with that. And indeed we can not be sure that there wasn't always something.